SignSimple

send_for_signature

Send a PDF document for legally binding electronic signature via SignSimple (free, unlimited). Provide the PDF as a fetchable URL or base64, plus recipient name(s) and email(s). Each recipient is emailed a secure signing link; signature and date fields are placed automatically unless custom fields are given. Works with the free templates from list_templates (pass their pdf URL as document_url). Requires a SignSimple API key (create one at https://signsimple.app/profile).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Message included in the signing email (optional)
`subject`	No	Email subject line (optional)
`recipients`	Yes	People who must sign, in order
`document_url`	No	Publicly fetchable URL of the PDF to send
`document_name`	Yes	Display name for the document, e.g. "Consulting Agreement.pdf"
`document_base64`	No	Base64-encoded PDF (alternative to document_url)
`expires_in_days`	No	Days until the signing links expire (optional, default 30)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recipients are emailed a secure signing link, fields are placed automatically, and an API key is required. It could mention response format or error handling, but the key side effects are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input requirements, behavioral outcome, and prerequisites/template integration. No redundant or vague filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main operation, input methods, recipient handling, template integration, and API key requirement. It doesn't explicitly state the return value, which is a minor gap, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that document_url and document_base64 are alternatives, and that templates from list_templates can be passed via document_url. It also clarifies recipient behavior. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sends a PDF for legally binding electronic signature via SignSimple, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates) which handle status, listing, and templates rather than sending.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when sending a document for signature—and includes a prerequisite (API key) and a cross-reference to list_templates for templates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling differentiation is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SignSimple tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: listing documents, checking a specific document's status, listing templates, and sending documents for signature. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates, send_for_signature. This creates a predictable and easy-to-navigate API.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core e-signature workflow: sending, listing, and checking status. Each tool is essential and the count is appropriate for the purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: send_for_signature (create), list_documents (read list), get_document_status (read detail), and list_templates (supporting resource). Missing operations like voiding or resending are minor for a simple free service, and agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?